2014 Chrysler Town & Country Touring-l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

FCA compromises with France, moving Renault merger bid forward

FRANKFURT/PARIS – Renault directors were preparing to review Fiat Chrysler's $35 billion merger offer on Tuesday, after the Italian-American carmaker resolved differences with the French government overnight, three sources said. The compromise on French government influence over a combined FCA-Renault may clear the way for Renault's board to approve a framework agreement beginning the long process of a full merger, unless new issues surface at the meeting. France, Renault's biggest shareholder with a 15% stake, had been pressing for its own guaranteed seat on the new board and an effective veto on CEO appointments. But after late-night talks with FCA Chairman John Elkann, the French government has accepted a compromise that would see it occupy one of four board seats allocated to Renault, balanced by four FCA appointees, the sources said. Renault would also cede one of its two seats on a four-member CEO nominations committee to the French state, they said. Renault, FCA and the French government all declined to comment on the discussions. The same evening that the compromise was was negotiated, activist hedge fund CIAM wrote to the board of Renault to say it "strongly opposed" a planned $35 billion merger with Fiat Chrysler. Calling the deal "opportunistic," the fund said the current deal terms strongly favored Fiat Chrysler and offered no control premium. (Reporting by Arno Schuetze and Laurence Frost; additional reporting by Giulio Piovaccari in Milan and Simon Jessop; editing by Jason Neely and Rachel Armstrong) Government/Legal Chrysler Fiat Mitsubishi Nissan Renault merger

China own a Detroit automaker? Would the U.S. let that happen?

The news that several Chinese automakers want to buy Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, and that one has even made an offer, elicits some mixed feelings. On one hand, as some have pointed out, it could be a win-win both for China and for FCA's American workers, ensuring the company's survival and opening new markets. On the other hand, this is China, whose trade relationship with the U.S. is the source of considerable scrutiny from the Trump administration — and whose not-a-friend, not-an-enemy status is particularly difficult to gauge right now during heightened tensions with its client state North Korea. So would such a deal pass regulatory muster? One reason that springs to mind for blocking any sale has to do with national security. Chrysler's role as a military supplier dates back to Dodge trucks used by Gen. Blackjack Pershing to chase Pancho Villa in Mexico, and shortly thereafter by American forces in World War I. The Detroit Three automakers were, of course, mainstays of the Arsenal of Democracy of World War II. Even before U.S. entry into the war in December 1941, America's industrial machinery went into overdrive, and Chrysler was one of the biggest cogs. It engineered and built the M3, Sherman and Pershing tanks and trucks for Gen. George Patton's Redball Express. It helped develop a radar-guided antiaircraft gun that knocked German bombers and V1 rockets out of the sky — on one day, shooting down 97 of 101 V1s headed for London. On D-Day, the radar system helped thwart Luftwaffe counterattacks on the beaches of Normandy, and it later helped Allied forces break out at the Battle of the Bulge. Chrysler redesigned the Wright Cyclone engines used by the Boeing B-29 Superfortress, the plane that firebombed Tokyo and dropped the atomic bombs that ended the war. Chrysler even played a secret role refining uranium in Oak Ridge, Tenn., that was used in the Hiroshima bomb and in the ensuing Cold War arms race. It worked on military missiles and was NASA's prime contractor for the Saturn V rocket that put men on the moon. More recently, Chrysler produced the M1 Abrams tank. And of course Chrysler is the keeper of the flame for Jeep, a 75-plus-years military legacy handed down from Bantam and Willys to Kaiser to AMC to Chrysler. The point of this history lesson is to note that in times of war or national emergency, America's industrial might has been called to serve, and may well be called on again.

Question of the Day: Most heinous act of badge engineering?

Badge engineering, in which one company slaps its emblems on another company's product and sells it, has a long history in the automotive industry. When Sears wanted to sell cars, a deal was made with Kaiser-Frazer and the Sears Allstate was born. Iranians wanted new cars in the 1960s, and the Rootes Group was happy to offer Hillman Hunters for sale as Iran Khodro Paykans. Sometimes, though, certain badge-engineered vehicles made sense only in the 26th hour of negotiations between companies. The Suzuki Equator, say, which was a puzzling rebadge job of the Nissan Frontier. How did that happen? My personal favorite what-the-heck-were-they-thinking example of badge engineering is the 1971-1973 Plymouth Cricket. Chrysler Europe, through its ownership of the Rootes Group, was able to ship over Hillman Avanger subcompacts for sale in the US market. This would have made sense... if Chrysler hadn't already been selling rebadged Mitsubishi Colt Galants (as Dodge Colts) and Simca 1100s as (Simca 1204s) in its American showrooms. Few bought the Cricket, despite its cheery ad campaign. So, what's the badge-engineered car you find most confounding? Chrysler Dodge Automakers Mitsubishi Nissan Suzuki Automotive History question of the day badge engineering question